Citation network
Samuels Vs. Mackell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 23, 1971
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 66 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
U.S. 66 (1971) Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
courts, where they can make their constitutional contentions, there is no basis for federal injunctive relief. Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
In No. 2, Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
the record that the plaintiffs would suffer immediate irreparable injury in accord with the rule set out in Douglas v. CitySearch
-
The question is not, however, a novel one. It was presented and fully considered by this Court in Great Lakes Co. v. HuffmanSearch
-
holding in the Great Lakes case has been repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed by this Court. See, e.g., Macauley v. WatermanSearch
-
Ott v. MississippiSearch
-
Public Serv. Comm'n v. WycoffSearch
-
Allegheny County v. MashudaSearch
-
Enochs v. WilliamsSearch
-
Page 401 U. S. 73 See also H. J. Heinz Co. v. OwensSearch
-
Together with No. 9, Fernandez v. MackellSearch
-
to the plaintiffs' challenge to the selection of the grand jury, the District Court held, in reliance on Douglas v. CitySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
stage. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring. The same New York statutes on anarchy that were sustained in Gitlow v. NewSearch
-
that contained the advocacy. Id. at 268 U. S. 655 . Gitlow and its progeny, including Whitney v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S. 357 , went into the discard with our decision in Brandenburg v. OhioSearch
-
First Amendment. There is a question concerning some of the overt acts -- whether, as I asked in my dissent in Epton v. NewSearch
-
amounting to bad faith harassment. Therefore, neither a declaratory judgment nor an injunction would be proper. Perez v. LedesmaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Samuels v. MackellSearch
-
Younger v. HarrisSearch
-
Douglas v. CitySearch
-
Great Lakes Co. v. HuffmanSearch
-
Macauley v. WatermanSearch
-
H. J. Heinz Co. v. OwensSearch
-
Fernandez v. MackellSearch
-
Gitlow v. NewSearch
-
Whitney v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Brandenburg v. OhioSearch
-
Epton v. NewSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial